Manocha v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 122

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Manocha v R [2019] NSWCCA 122
Hearing dates: 22 March 2019
Date of orders: 14 June 2019
Decision date: 14 June 2019
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Adams J at [72];
Ierace J at [80]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — appeal against conviction — application for leave —conviction for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm and failing to provide child with necessities of life — medical and biomedical evidence of the cause of injuries — whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence

CRIMINAL LAW — appeal against conviction — whether verdict unreasonable in light of acquittal on count of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm — whether modified circumstantial evidence direction should have been provided
CRIMINAL LAW — appeal against sentence — whether error in assessing objective criminality —precise mechanism of injury unknown
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mamta Manocha (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr I McLachlan (Applicant)
Mr G Newton (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Watsons (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/45019
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

16 June 2017

Before:

Ingram SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/45019

Judgment

BASTEN JA: In May 2013 a child, known in the proceedings as “GC”, was placed in the foster care of the applicant, Mamta Manocha, and her husband. On the afternoon of 25 July 2013 GC was admitted to Westmead Hospital with an occipital skull fracture, bilateral subdural haematoma, defused cerebral oedema, bruising and bone trauma. Subsequent examinations indicated further conditions.
The applicant was subsequently charged and, on 21 February 2017, entered a plea of not guilty with respect to three counts on an indictment, namely:

causing grievous bodily harm to GC with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;

in the alternative to count 1, recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to GC;

being a person having parental responsibility for GC, recklessly and without reasonable excuse failing to provide him with the necessities of life, thus causing a danger of serious injury to GC.

Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict of not guilty on count (1), but guilty on counts (2) and (3). On 16 June 2017 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months. She now seeks leave to appeal from her convictions and the sentences.
With respect to the proposed conviction appeal, there was a specific allegation that a miscarriage was occasioned “by not giving a modified circumstantial evidence direction”: ground 2. The applicant accepted that the judge had given the jury an appropriate general direction with respect to circumstantial evidence; the complaint was that a more detailed direction should have been given in relation to the possible mechanisms by which injury occurred and the need to eliminate a reasonable doubt that it may…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Manocha v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Manocha v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 122
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 122
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm and failing to provide the necessities of life to a child, and he appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal considered whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and whether the trial judge should have provided a modified circumstantial evidence direction. The court also considered whether there was an error in assessing the objective criminality of the offence given the unknown mechanism of injury.

The key issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, and whether a modified circumstantial evidence direction should have been provided, particularly in light of the appellant's acquittal on a count of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm. The court also considered whether there was an error in assessing the objective criminality of the offence given the unknown mechanism of injury.

The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury and that the verdict was not unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the principles of circumstantial evidence and that the appellant's acquittal on the count of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm did not necessarily mean that the other counts were unreasonable. The court also found that there was no error in assessing the objective criminality of the offence, as the precise mechanism of injury was not relevant to the assessment of the objective criminality. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Orders